In recent years, the proliferation of Open Educational Resources (OERs) has led to a change within the educational paradigm, offering free and unrestricted access to a growth of learning materials. This phenomenon has found particular significance within the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields, where the demand for high-quality, accessible resources is vital. Several established frameworks exist to assess the quality of OERs, providing criteria and scales for evaluating pedagogical effectiveness, content accuracy, and instructional design. These frameworks serve as guiding principles for educators and instructional designers trying to produce and select meaningful OERs. Additionally, peer review mechanisms play a crucial role in ensuring the scholarly rigor and accuracy of OER content. By engaging experts within the field, peer review processes validate the credibility of materials and facilitate iterative improvements through collaborative feedback and critique. The evaluation of OER is crucial to ensuring their quality, usability and impact in education. Our research addresses some current OER evaluation models that exhibit several limitations that hinder the effective evaluation and improvement of OER, potentially compromising their educational value and widespread adoption. The key outcomes from this study include a comprehensive understanding of quality assessment frameworks, quality attributes and quality models for OER validation processes, and empowering educators and stakeholders with evidence-based insights and recommendations to foster a culture of continuous improvement in OERs development and implementation. Therefore, this study aims to contribute to the ongoing advancement of quality assessment practices for OERs, ultimately enhancing their effectiveness, accessibility, and impact in diverse educational contexts.